OPINION & EDITORIAL
Milwaukee gang rape exemplifies state’s prison woes
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Max Schlusselberg:
- Physicians in pocket of pharmaceutical industry (November 9, 2007)
- Landlord greed crosses boundary (October 12, 2007)
- Milwaukee gang rape exemplifies state's prison woes (September 14, 2007)
- Second Amendment out-of-date (April 20, 2007)
- Internet lacks standard of decency (March 20, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Shout-out belittles rape (December 5, 2006)
- Gender factor in child-rape sentencing (September 23, 2005)
- Paper's account of alleged rape unfair (February 22, 2007)
- No justice in Williams' death sentence (October 28, 2005)
- Victims deserve true compassion (May 8, 2007)
by Max Schlusselberg
Friday, September 14, 2007
It is the type of news story that when read or relayed to another can only elicit a sighing shake of the head, or maybe an expletive mumbled softly. The story was the gang rape of an 11-year-old Milwaukee girl, who, unknown to her attackers, was born HIV-positive. The oldest perpetrator in connection with the crime is 40-year-old Freeman Gurley, charged with a felony count of first-degree sexual assault of a minor. Gurley, who admitted to not using a condom during his crime, described the violation of this young girl to include no less than 14 men having their way with the child over the course of around an hour.
The only solace to be taken away from this heinous crime is that Freeman Gurley, as well as the untold number of others that raped this HIV-infected child, sans condom, will surely pay for their crimes. Regardless of the judge's sentencing, nature has already placed these men on a biological death row, which if you ask me, is a great thing. Not just because Gurley is guaranteed a slow death, but because he is one less man that our country needs to keep jammed in our highly dysfunctional prison system.
As of 2001, America had a larger percentage of its population behind bars than any nation in the world. There are currently 6.6 million people immersed in the corrections system. That means approximately 1/32 adults are either incarcerated, on parole or on probation. During a study conducted in June 2006 by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, it was found that 67 percent of convicts whom the state deems rehabilitated are eventually rearrested, and 52 percent are reincarcerated within three years of their release. Recidivism rates alone expose the serious shortcomings of America's correctional system, a vacuum that sucks up $60 billion a year in taxpayer dollars.
The United States has 5,000 prisons and jails. The majority of which are deeply impregnated with drugs, gang violence and overcrowding. Putting a criminal through an American correctional facility and expecting him to emerge rehabilitated is tantamount to putting a gambling addict on the strip in Vegas and telling him to quit gambling.
Naturally, questions are raised about what can be done to fix our failing prison system. There are violent offenders, people such as Freeman Gurley, who are surely threats to our society. Personally, I would suggest doing away with all such scum, using nothing but a needle and a potent pharmaceutical cocktail.
After all, the only difference between killing a violent offender and handing down consecutive life sentences is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Keeping one person locked in a Wisconsin state prison for a year costs $28,000. That's more than a year of out-of-state tuition.
Although keeping criminals behind bars weighs heavily on taxpayers, it is deemed necessary for public safety. Yet what about all the lesser evils we keep locked away at just as high a price? If nothing else, it is simply not cost-effective to lock up nonviolent offenders, such as drug addicts and petty offenders.
Our neighbors in Minnesota are getting the picture, as they have instituted a concept known as "restorative justice." This strategy stresses community service-based rehabilitation in which nonviolent offenders learn to be held accountable for their actions, as well as being aided in overcoming their crime provoking addictions. Minnesotans, much to their delight, have found that restorative justice has largely increased effectiveness of sentencing at a fraction of the cost, without any sacrifice to public safety.
Obviously not all offenders are of the nonviolent persuasion. Of those currently incarcerated, about 95 percent are scheduled to return to society in the future. As recidivism rates prove, despite lengthy jail sentences, the majority of prisoners returning to society are no better off than when they were first convicted. Yet there may be light at the end of this tunnel.
Incentive programs such as the Bard Prison Initiative, a program that is giving inmates higher education and career skills in New York prisons, have seen their program lower reincarceration rates from 60 percent to less than 15 percent. This comes as no surprise, because a well-educated prisoner will be more ready to fill a productive niche in today's competitive society, as opposed to the ill-adjusted prisoner with no such skills.
We have a commitment to public safety that demands we reprimand wrongdoers. The current system is failing. By offering nonviolent offenders another chance at life through restorative justice, and by giving those less fortunate the same chance through education and job training, we have a possibility of reversing this trend and removing the rot that eats at the very foundation of our society.
Max Schlusselberg (schlusselberg@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in journalism.
Anonymous (September 14, 2007 @ 7:58am):
"The only solace to be taken away from this heinous crime is that Freeman Gurley, as well as the untold number of others that raped this HIV-infected child, sans condom, will surely pay for their crimes."
You sick bastard, how can you be consoled by this? He probably won't become HIV infected either, since there would have to be some blood-to-blood contact.
Anonymous (September 14, 2007 @ 8:27am):
Legalize drugs and pardan all drug users in prison - that would be a start to reducing the over-crowding.
But the prison guards union wouldn't go for that.
Anonymous (September 14, 2007 @ 9:42am):
I beg your "pardan?"
Anonymous (September 14, 2007 @ 10:08am):
"You sick bastard, how can you be consoled by this? He probably won't become HIV infected either, since there would have to be some blood-to-blood contact."
You know nothing about the transmission of HIV, do you?
It's spread through vaginal juices and semen as well as blood.
The truth is, he is now infected with HIV and he will probably die within about ten years. I'm usually not a fan of capital punishment, but someone who rapes someone that young deserves death. They really do.
Anonymous (September 14, 2007 @ 10:17am):
8:27, this overcrowding, combined with the cost-cutting aims of an increasingly privatized prison establishment has only made the jobs of prison guards more dangerous. You would be naíve to assume these unions wouldn't welcome efforts to reduce overcrowding.
Anonymous (September 14, 2007 @ 10:40am):
"After all, the only difference between killing a violent offender and handing down consecutive life sentences is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Keeping one person locked in a Wisconsin state prison for a year costs $28,000."
This is true, but I don't think it helps your argument. It costs substantially more for the state to execute a person than to incarcerate them for life. We don't just indiscriminately kill people we think might have done something wrong, nor should we. The appeals process in a death penalty case is long and arduous because the state is not in the business of arbitrary murder. That process is also hugely expensive.
So, you're right that the difference (and I wouldn't say the only difference) between incarceration and execution is thousands of dollars. I just don't think you understand which approach is, in reality, more expensive. Do some research:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108
Anonymous (September 14, 2007 @ 11:27am):
"It costs substantially more for the state to execute a person than to incarcerate them for life."
In China it only cost a few cents for the bullet.
Anonymous (September 16, 2007 @ 9:11am):
How is death punishment to someone who would otherwise spend life in prison? If when you die you assume this person would go to hell, then it would probably be a suitable punishment. However, if that person found Jesus they would be welcomed into heaven. If nothing happens after you die, then you short-change your punishment schedule, also.
In conclusion, death penalties only cut observable punishments short.
Anonymous (September 16, 2007 @ 8:48pm):
So the death penalty is just a mercy killing?
Anonymous (March 24, 2008 @ 6:56pm):
I can understand those that oppose capitol punishment, however why should any tax payer carry the burden of paying for their "housing, meals,gas and electric...", when a greater majority of the population are barly keeping their own families heads above water? Less appeals and more action is needed, and I am not refering to building more prisons. That is just another cost that comes out of My pocket.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
